criterionforum.org

ianungstad wrote:It seems that IFC licensed all their early titles to different studios for home video release back when they were starting out early this decade. (Following with Sony, Y Tu Mama Tambien with MGM)

I'm not sure when IFC ended up with the distribution rights to Following, but it was recently. They didn't license it to Sony. Chris Nolan owns the copyright to it himself. He licensed it to Sony Home Entertainment when they wanted to release it on the heels of their successful home video release of Memento , and he must have gone to IFC when that deal expired.

MGM acquired the rights to all of the IFC catalog in 2002, but of course that deal has expired.

I wonder if IFC still has the rights to John Sayles' early films. He licensed them the rights to The Brother From Another Planet and Return of the Secaucus 7 when they released Casa de los Babys, and IFC released pretty good discs through MGM. If those discs weren't already well-appointed, I'd suggest they were likely candidates for Criterion. Of course that's not stopping them from doing Following and Y Tu Mama Tambien.

ianungstad wrote:Anyone else think [Tape] is likely?

I'm not sure what the distribution rights are like on InDigEnt productions. IFC was a partner in that venture, but I'm not sure that they necessarily have any claim to home video rights. Tape is one of my favorite Linklaters. I'd love to see Criterion release it.

Is there any reason Drawing Restraint couldn't see a release?

Flike wrote:Is there any reason Drawing Restraint couldn't see a release?

Yes. The fact that Matthew Barney is vehemently opposed to any home release of his films.

Ah, okay. I was under the impression that Cremaster would never see release because of the DVD distribution situation, whereas Drawing Restraint was a more commercial endeavor.

Flike wrote:Ah, okay. I was under the impression that Cremaster would never see release because of the DVD distribution situation, whereas Drawing Restraint was a more commercial endeavor.

Matthew Barney considers his individual films to be but one part of a larger piece. Collectors get the film/video in his sometimes gooey, waxy, or plastic phantasmagoric vitrines through the gallery that represents him. He thinks it would lessen the value of his art work if presented as a commercial DVD.

That said, it makes no real sense being as he lets the video be distributed as a film. He seems to have already separated the film from the art piece, so the next logical step would be to release it on video. I hardly see how this would have any effect on the work he sells through his gallery. Both he and his wife are in their own world. Ya gotta love 'em (or not, I guess), but it makes no earthly sense!

Jeff wrote:

ianungstad wrote:It seems that IFC licensed all their early titles to different studios for home video release back when they were starting out early this decade. (Following with Sony, Y Tu Mama Tambien with MGM)

I'm not sure when IFC ended up with the distribution rights to Following, but it was recently. They didn't license it to Sony. Chris Nolan owns the copyright to it himself. He licensed it to Sony Home Entertainment when they wanted to release it on the heels of their successful home video release of Memento , and he must have gone to IFC when that deal expired.

MGM acquired the rights to all of the IFC catalog in 2002, but of course that deal has expired.

I wonder if IFC still has the rights to John Sayles' early films. He licensed them the rights to The Brother From Another Planet and Return of the Secaucus 7 when they released Casa de los Babys, and IFC released pretty good discs through MGM. If those discs weren't already well-appointed, I'd suggest they were likely candidates for Criterion. Of course that's not stopping them from doing Following and Y Tu Mama Tambien.

ianungstad wrote:Anyone else think [Tape] is likely?

I'm not sure what the distribution rights are like on InDigEnt productions. IFC was a partner in that venture, but I'm not sure that they necessarily have any claim to home video rights. Tape is one of my favorite Linklaters. I'd love to see Criterion release it.

I still think releasing titles that HAVEN'T been released on DVD yet should be a higher priority than those that have already been out under a different label, some of which (the ones from this decade especially) already have presumably good transfers. 8-[

Lemmy Caution wrote:Well, they did recently take such a step with Revanche, a film that otherwise wouldn't have been heard of outside a small circle. So it appears that they are open to exploring the path you suggest.

Yes, which makes this whole IFC deal (which I gather will be ongoing) even more disappointing, as it means similar acquisitions are unlikely in the future. It should be noted, however, that the impetus for the Revanche acquisition was an Oscar nomination, they didn't actually scout it out in Berlin.

Tribe wrote:your "faux-arthouse effort" is another man's compelling all-time classic.

This is very much an aside. The bottom line is they acquired the film as part of a package because it had already been acquired by IFC (who, in turn, acquired it because it had been promoted to the hilt by Icon, aka. Mel Gibson), not because it was one of the stand-out films of the year - Criterion being in no position to form an opinion on the latter, having not scouted for themselves. Tell me how this accords with the Criterion mission statement.

Nothing wrote:It should be noted, however, that the impetus for the Revanche acquisition was an Oscar nomination, they didn't actually scout it out in Berlin.

Not quite. Janus picked up the film at the end of October 2008. At that time, it was Austria's official Academy Awards entry for foreign-language film (just one of the 67 entries in that category), but the nominations were not announced until January 23, 2009.

Daily Variety wrote: Janus topper Peter Becker saw "Revanche" at the 2008 Telluride film fest and began discussions with Spielmann.

Nothing wrote:The bottom line is they acquired the film as part of a package because it had already been acquired by IFC (who, in turn, acquired it because it had been promoted to the hilt by Icon, aka. Mel Gibson), not because it was one of the stand-out films of the year - Criterion being in no position to form an opinion on the latter, having not scouted for themselves. Tell me how this accords with the Criterion mission statement.

Hunger may not be a good film (dunno, haven't seen it), but you can't argue that it cannot be deemed an "important" "contemporary" film: it won the Camera d'or at Cannes, 3 British Independent Film Awards, a BATFA, 2 Chicago Film Festival Awards, a European Film Award, 6 Irish Film and Television Awards, and on and on and on. Steve McQueen (the living one) might not be a big name in the film world, but he's certainly a name in the contemporary art world (won the Turner Prize, represented the UK at this year's Venice Biennale; this decade's Matthew Barney, if you will). He's also black, so... yay diversity. I'm not going to buy Hunger, but I don't see what's so wrong with Criterion releasing it.

FInally, Mel Gibson no longer has anything to do with Icon Film Distribution. He (and partner Bruce Davey) sold the sales and distribution arms of the company to Stuart Till in September 2008.

Nothing wrote: The bottom line is they acquired the film as part of a package because it had already been acquired by IFC (who, in turn, acquired it because it had been promoted to the hilt by Icon, aka. Mel Gibson), not because it was one of the stand-out films of the year - Criterion being in no position to form an opinion on the latter, having not scouted for themselves. Tell me how this accords with the Criterion mission statement.

I doubt very much Criterion acquired the rights to Gomorrah (I believe that's the film we're referring to), or any of the other IFC films sight unseen. I could certainly be wrong, but it would be surprising.

As for the mission statement, I'm sure you're aware of the many, many posts regarding that in the past....

Criterion gets to pick from IFC's films. It's not like they're going to release every film IFC distributes. The bulk are going to MPI. Criterion chose Gomorrah, Che, A Christmas Tale, et. al. specifically because they felt they were important and fit Criterion's mission. They were in a similar situation with the now-defunct Cowboy Pictures, which led to the Criterion releases of Fat Girl, Ratcatcher, and George Washington.

Am I the only one who thinks because of all the unnecessary rage directed to contemporary film (which they've always had very little of until recently), that people forget that this year they recently released new transfers for The Last Year at Marienbad, the two Godard films, Repulsion, The Human Condition, Imamura, Wise Blood that people have been clamoring for since I first started coming here and the two Bunuel films people have been craving since Criterion started producing DVD's.

The arguments made against contemporary films here tends to be pretty weak especially considering we're getting Everlasting Moments, Gomorrah (which was a solid crime film), and Still Walking (which is tied with a very different film about the modern Japanese family, Tokyo Sonata, as my favorite movie this year).

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:The arguments made against contemporary films here tends to be pretty weak

Exactly. The only real argument I've heard basically amounts to "I don't like 'em."

Jeff wrote: Exactly. The only real argument I've heard basically amounts to "I don't like 'em."

It's doubtful that Criterion picked up any contemporary films that wouldn't have been picked up anyway. Meanwhile, they're sitting on a treasure trove they fully admit they don't have the resources to get out. (of course, the minute they release something by one of my favorite contemporary filmmakers, I'll jump up and down happy)

GringoTex wrote:It's doubtful that Criterion picked up any contemporary films that wouldn't have been picked up anyway.

But Criterion thinks these films have the potential to be profitable for them, and to grow their brand. That's why they're releasing them. Why wouldn't I want the awareness and profitability of Criterion to increase, as opposed to, say, MPI? I'm not sure fewer contemporary releases would necessarily mean more obscure classics. The amount of investment of resources necessary to port a transfer of a contemporary film with supplements like Gomorrah versus restoring and developing an obscure older film is significant.

I saw Gomorrah theatrically. I didn't like it at all, but I'm pleased that Criterion is releasing it. I think it was a wise business decision, and won't require significant investment of resources from the Criterion staff.

Nothing wrote:Tell me how this accords with the Criterion mission statement.

Continually amazed that there are people who use the phrase "mission statement" without irony.

Matt wrote:it may not be a good film (dunno, haven't seen it), but you can't argue that it cannot be deemed an "important" "contemporary" film: it won the Camera d'or at Cannes, 3 British Independent Film Awards, a BATFA, 2 Chicago Film Festival Awards, a European Film Award, 6 Irish Film and Television Awards...

Awards are fickle, always political, and rarely an indication of worth. Neither Revanche or Fat Girl won any particularly significant awards. Jean-Claude Brisseau, one of the great contemporary auteurs and surely a shoo-in for the Criterion treatment, hasn't won a major award in his life. Perhaps Criterion should also release Chicago and Crash, they must be even more "important" due to their Best Picture Oscars... No, To justify the package deal with IFC on such grounds is a cop-out, pure and simple. (incidentally, I'd be interested to hear which other Camera d'Or winners from the past thirty years have been acquired by Criterion, since they're suddenly so interested in this particular plaudit).

Matt wrote:Mel Gibson no longer has anything to do with Icon Film Distribution. He (and partner Bruce Davey) sold the sales and distribution arms of the company to Stuart Till in September 2008.

Hunger premiered (and sold to IFC) in May 2008.

Jeff wrote:Criterion gets to pick from IFC's films... Criterion chose Gomorrah, Che, A Christmas Tale, et. al. specifically because they felt they were important and fit Criterion's mission.

Gomorra, Che, A Christmas Tale and Hunger were IFC's 'tentpole' releases for the season. It seems unlikely in the extreme that Criterion would just happen to pick those same four films on grounds of merit alone... Indeed, there are more appropriate titles for the Criterion treatment, made by well-established auteurs, even amongst recent IFC acquisitions (The Man from London, Paranoid Park, Flight of the Red Balloon, Summer Hours, A Girl Cut in Two).

Tribe wrote:I doubt very much Criterion acquired the rights to Gomorrah (I believe that's the film we're referring to), or any of the other IFC films sight unseen.

Of course they had seen Gomorra - but had they seen every other film in Cannes that year? In Venice or Berlin? IFC had actually seen most of these films, to their credit, and they made conservative commercial decisions based on that - but why are Criterion deferring to those decisions, not making the decisions for themselves?

Jeff wrote:The only real argument I've heard basically amounts to "I don't like 'em."

I thought Che was magnificent for the most part and had time for both Gomorra and A Christmas Tale. But these films have US DVD releases anyway, they don't require the Criterion treatment, and by siding with IFC's distribution choices, rather than making choices of their own, it is my firm belief that Criterion are making a negative impact on the international film scene when they could be making a positive one.

To return to Revanche - every US distributor passed on this film, including IFC. But Criterion are in a special position, with a captive audience of sorts (the spine number completists who simply "must have" every Criterion edition). They would be able to make a go of anything they chose to lay their hands on, and have done so with this otherwise fairly obscure title - so, if they must continue to dip their toes into the contemporary arena, why not continue to use this power for good, actively seeking and providing the best contemporary films to the US public, regardless of hype, rather than simply adding prestige to the tentpole releases of a mercenary distributor who already have a DVD outlet? Or, if this is all just about profit, how about they drop the pretention and give us Criterion editions of The Dark Knight and Transformers 2.

Nothing wrote:Gomorra, Che, A Christmas Tale and Hunger were IFC's 'tentpole' releases for the season. It seems unlikely in the extreme that Criterion would just happen to pick those same four films on grounds of merit alone... Indeed, there are more appropriate titles for the Criterion treatment, made by well-established auteurs, even amongst recent IFC acquisitions (The Man from London, Paranoid Park, Flight of the Red Balloon, Summer Hours, A Girl Cut in Two).

If you are implying that Criterion are making decisions on which films to release with their bottom line in mind just as much as some sort of duty to cinema, I agree with you. They'd be pretty irresponsible not to. They are being somewhat adventurous too though. Criterion indeed has Summer Hours on tap for next year, along with releases of Everlasting Moments, The Secret of the Grain, and Still Walking. I don't think those would qualify as "tentpole releases" by even the loosest of definitions. As for the other titles you named, Paranoid Park and Flight of the Red Balloon are still subject to previous distribution arrangements, and if Criterion decides to release them when those deals expire, you can bet people will be bitching about Criterion bothering with previously available films. I'm not sure what the status of The Man from London and A Girl Cut in Two are.

Nothing wrote:To return to Revanche - every US distributor passed on this film, including IFC. But Criterion are in a special position, with a captive audience of sorts (the spine number completists who simply "must have" every Criterion edition). They would be able to make a go of anything they chose to lay their hands on, and have done so with this otherwise fairly obscure title - so, if they must continue to dip their toes into the contemporary arena, why not continue to use this power for good, actively seeking and providing the best contemporary films to the US public, regardless of hype, rather than simply adding prestige to the tentpole releases of a mercenary distributor who already have a DVD outlet?

Films in Revanche's situation are few and far between. It slipped through the cracks and Janus was able to nab it. I loved Revanche, and couldn't believe nobody else wanted it. I hope they get similar chances in the future. They are going to get outbid on the vast majority of independently produced films that have even a modicum of crossover potential though.

Jeff wrote:Films in Revanche's situation are few and far between... They are going to get outbid on the vast majority of independently produced films that have even a modicum of crossover potential though.

I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea about the problems currently facing the independent and European film sector. I'd say that 85%+ of the films selected by Cannes and Venice both this year and last are without a US distributor. Those that did get a deal were paid peanuts and films like Che and Gomorra, that would previously have sold to Sony or another major, had to settle with IFC at a fraction of their original asking price (Che had a budget of $80m, ffs!). This isn't simply a response to the drop in audiences (although it is that too), but also a pure lack of capital, with banks unwilling to lend against the high costs of a US theatrical release, not to mention the financial collapse of both Tartan and New Yorker, meaning that the number of capable distributors just doesn't correspond in any way to the amount of (high quality) product available. Meanwhile, instead of doing something to assist the situation (one lone and misleadingly hopeful acquisition aside), Criterion decide to cash in... How very responsible, how very American. I guess we should applaud, after all.

Nothing wrote:I thought Che was magnificent for the most part and had time for both Gomorra and A Christmas Tale. But these films have US DVD releases anyway

Imagine my shock when I went into Blockbuster the other day and found all three available for rental. The idea that Criterion is following a path forged by Blockbuster is a bit disconcerting.

Kirkinson wrote:Facets has DVDs from other regions and you can rent from them across the country. Though I imagine the turnaround time isn't great for NY, as their only distribution center is their own little store in Chicago. But still.

They have ton of dvds not available in R1. Are these bootlegs or the real R2 releases?

Nothing wrote:Meanwhile, instead of doing something to assist the situation (one lone and misleadingly hopeful acquisition aside), Criterion decide to cash in... How very responsible, how very American. I guess we should applaud, after all.

Now wait a second, it's not Criterion's responsibility to redress the failings of the financial system.

Over at the Playlist it is noted that IFC has picked up Bruno Dumont's Hadewijich. Room for speculation of a potential Criterion release since Dumont's La vie de Jésus and L'humanité are already forthcoming....

Nothing wrote:I'm sorry, but you clearly have no idea about the problems currently facing the independent and European film sector. I'd say that 85%+ of the films selected by Cannes and Venice both this year and last are without a US distributor... instead of doing something to assist the situation (one lone and misleadingly hopeful acquisition aside), Criterion decide to cash in... How very responsible, how very American. I guess we should applaud, after all.

I wrote:...films that have even a modicum of crossover potential

I am very aware of the number of undistributed films. Criterion isn't going to acquire things they will lose money on. That doesn't have anything to do with being Americans. It has to do with not being stupid.

so lightly here wrote:

Flike wrote:Ah, okay. I was under the impression that Cremaster would never see release because of the DVD distribution situation, whereas Drawing Restraint was a more commercial endeavor.

Matthew Barney considers his individual films to be but one part of a larger piece. Collectors get the film/video in his sometimes gooey, waxy, or plastic phantasmagoric vitrines through the gallery that represents him. He thinks it would lessen the value of his art work if presented as a commercial DVD.

That said, it makes no real sense being as he lets the video be distributed as a film. He seems to have already separated the film from the art piece, so the next logical step would be to release it on video. I hardly see how this would have any effect on the work he sells through his gallery. Both he and his wife are in their own world. Ya gotta love 'em (or not, I guess), but it makes no earthly sense!

It makes sense if you raise money for your films in part by selling shares in the film to investors for $100,000 each, and teh investors get a copy of a special limited edition DVD that no one else will get. The art gallery/museum world doesn't work on the same economics as the film world, and the gallery/museum world consciously keeps itself distinct from the film world. Its an underlying reason behind the threat to the film program at LACMA. At the Save Film at LACMA meeting (which I did not attend), the museum president (not Michael Govan) said something along the lines of "who wants to see a movie anyway and sit in a dark room with a bunch of people you don't know?" It's a strong elitist attitude. It kills me.

Doesn't this apply to Andy Warhol as well? From what I understand, his estate isn't interested in home video releases of his work and they are screen exclusively in galleries.

ianungstad wrote:Doesn't this apply to Andy Warhol as well? From what I understand, his estate isn't interested in home video releases of his work and they are screen exclusively in galleries.

Mostly true, however, remember Plexifims distributed 13 Most Beautiful/Andy Warhol's Screen Tests. I was hoping that might open the flood gates but there have been no follow up releases ...